Given our owned corporate media, it comes as no surprise that the numerous counts of fraud committed by Elsevier doesn’t receive an iota of the attention that it would have had the falsifying been the other way around.

Below I have linked just a few articles to peak your interest and to (once again) highlight the fraudulence of Big Pharma-supportive “research”.

Beneath that you will find information substantiating the autism-vaccines link, as well as information pertaining to the CDC’s fraud and cover-up regarding their knowledge of the connection between vaccines and autism.

‘Elsevier published 6 fake journals. Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted. Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate-sponsored.’

‘Last week, we learned about Elsevier publishing a bogus journal for Merck. Now, several librarians say that they have uncovered an entire imprint of ‘advertorial’ publications. Excerpta Medica, a ‘strategic medical communications agency,’ is an Elsevier division. Along with the now infamous Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, it published a number of other ‘journals.’ Elsevier CEO Michael Hansen now admits that at least six fake journals were published for pharmaceutical companies.’

‘Journals published by Elsevier, Wolters Kluwer, and Sage all accepted my bogus paper. Wolters Kluwer Health, the division responsible for the Medknow journals, “is committed to rigorous adherence to the peer-review processes and policies that comply with the latest recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the World Association of Medical Editors,” a Wolters Kluwer representative states in an e-mail. “We have taken immediate action and closed down the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals.”’

‘Peer reviewers cannot spot fraud. Believe it or not, but some people just have an eye to spot image duplications while others are utterly hopeless. Are they to be excluded as peer reviewers then?

Instead, journals should:

1) employ own data integrity detectives or engage outside professional services. They charge enough money from scientists already, so there is must be some margin for that as well.

2) act properly when others did this job for them for free and found data manipulations in published papers. Instead, journals like Cell and Lancet (both Elsevier, what a coincidence) make a mockery of research integrity and ignore all evidence brought before them.’

‘1. Two years ago, I wrote about how you have to pay to download Elsevier’s “open access” articles. I showed how their open-access articles claimed “all rights reserved”, and how when you use the site’s facilities to ask about giving one electronic copy to a student, the price is £10.88. As I summarised at the time: “Free” means “we take the author’s copyright, all rights are reserved, but you can buy downloads at a 45% discount from what they would otherwise cost.” No-one from Elsevier commented.

2. Eight months ago, Peter Murray-Rust explained that Elsevier charges to read #openaccess articles. He showed how all three of the randomly selected open-access articles he looked at had download fees of $31.50. No-one from Elsevier commented (although see below).

3. A couple of days ago, Peter revisited this issue, and found that Elsevier are still charging THOUSANDS of pounds for CC-BY articles. IMMORAL, UNETHICAL , maybe even ILLEGAL.This time he picked another Elsevier OA article at random, and was quoted £8000 for permission to print 100 copies. The one he looked at says “Open Access” in gold at the top and “All rights reserved” at the bottom. Its “Get rights and content” link takes me to RightsLink, where I was quoted £1.66 to supply a single electronic copy to a student on a course at the University of Bristol…’